If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

First if I may, we're they tracking live in the studio Tom Petty, Stevie? That could be why the 441s. Directional and forgiving. And maybe secondly it was just what was needed. The 441 was Linda Rondstats fav mic at one time I read. But it was big and in the way she said on stage in the end. I have all the Neumann greats and also have a pair of 441s. Sm7 Shure is also a great loud singer mic.

Regarding your question Michael. What mics are they and what is the frequncy plot? Do you leave the mics in the same position? Or do you move them at all? And it's not your monitors for certain?

Horrible explanation and littered with opinions, he even contradicts himself at points. Yes, Small mics better at highs, big mics better at lows. Hello, Surface areas to accept the waveform? Size has nothing to do with accuracy. Its what the diaphragm is made of is what affects sensitivity, a neo is better than a standard mag?, gold plate is better than silver plate?, you don't know and the manufacturer tells you that THEY don't know.... Its subjective, you wanna do low get big, you wanna do high get small. I have never heard a TC30 on a kick, and that's what the OP says SHOULD WORK???? Mic are similar to the instrument they where designed for... 58 had windscreen for vocals, 57 had no screen for instruments, no breath noises. The damn beta 52 is a b57 with an acoustically designed shell, doubt it, open yours. Thats a big chassis for what is in it...Its humbling the first time you see a B52 diaphragm, but then you realize, I really have to make it work! Its not a LF mic. THAT PG52 is a pg57 in a big shell. You cannot pin down his philosophy.

Well a lot of small condensers I have are certainly not accurate in my opinion. Even my KM 84 Neumanns are a sound and not accurate as say my Schoeps or even SM81s. The transformer affects the source in a pleasant way. A small versus large condenser's main purpose is speed. They are faster then a large condensers so if transients are important such as the nuances of string materials or attacks on stringed keys like an acoustic piano, or room sound leakage, then small can be more the answer. Large condensers have to disperse or share the real estate when receiving signal over a larger area of the capsule therefore they are slower and less sensitive for such things as say vocal, horns, the bloom character portion of standup basses, and other big sounds who's attacks are not as much the issue. Just my take. Thats the guide but all rules can be broken or sacrificed for tone.

Hello everybody,
thanks so much to Harvey for the microphone explanations. I am currently shopping for a microphone and, like so many on this forum, am on a budget. under $500 to be specific.

I should mention that I am really new to recording. Before posting this message, I actually went through a bunch of the previous posts but couldn't find what I was looking for. Hence my post now.

I plan to record teen pop and am looking for a microphone that handles mids and highs well without sounding too bright or tinny on top. I only own an SM57 at the moment and plan on using it coupled with a large diaphragm condenser to record acoustic guitar. i would like the condenser to be able to handle vocals AND guitar well. basically to avoid buying a third microphone like a small condenser for instruments.

like i said before, i'm trying to find a mic that will allow me to get a great sound on the mids and the high's [U]without adding a lot of additional processing. the mics I have looked at so far include the Blue Spark and the AKG C214 (little brother of the C414). personally I like how the AKG C214 sounds on vocals but dislike how it sounds on acoustic guitars. the spark sounds good un ukelele's, but is still missing that slightly brighter soft high end that i'm looking for on vocals like the AKG has. both mics sounds good enough to meet my needs, but i'm willing to spend a bit more to get that sound I have in my head, the NOT tinny kind of thin but still filled out warm mid to high range vocal sound.

what's a microphone that you guys can recommend that can provide that sound i'm looking for under $500?

btw- I have every intention of buying a stand-alone pre amp in the future. it's just out of budget right now, and I am getting by with the pre's in my Komplete Audio 6 interface.

Well I wrote out a bible and then the site kicked it out and erased it.

In a nutshell it sounds like the sound you are after is like an ELAM 251 Telefunken. This is pretty much a benchmark of that sound and a very expensive microphone.
If you describe that to a knowledgable mic guy at your best pro audio dealer that is what category he should be looking at. Think of Rod Stewart, Bryan Adams, Sting...with those high mid textures that they have in their vocal yet you still want to have some bottom end when you need it. That is why I suggested this.
There are so many mic manufacturers now in the price range you seek. I can't begin to know them anymore but I thought it would be of help to give you the category. I hope that is in the ballpark for a suggestion.
If you can find one second hand ...the Rode K2 is a contender in that price range. I own both of these mics above and I think the Rode K2 at least emulates the ELAM.
Lou.